DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-9, 11, and 19 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 12/23/2025, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 11/17/2025:
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
New grounds of rejection are made in response to claim amendments.
The examiner notes that a complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action. Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. See MPEP 804. In this case, while the action is not fully responsive with respect to the NDSP rejections, the examiner is accepting the amendment as an adequate reply at this time, but applicant is notified of the deficiency.
Claim Interpretation
The elected claims are to a system that is interpreted as an apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg et al., US 20200298475 A1 (of record), in view of Pialot et al., US 20140363585 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Myerberg discloses a solvent-free powder bed 3D printing system (Fig. 1, additive fabrication device, [0032], does not rely on binder inks including solvents, [0025]) comprising:
A powder deposition unit (powder delivery system 120 with roller 125, Fig. 1, [0034]) configured to deposit a solvent free binder-coated powder (configured to deliver powdered feedstock, [0034]; note that a composition of the powder does not limit the powder deposition unit, a device, but Myerberg also discloses the powder being metal powder coated with the polymer/binder, [0026], [0038], and does not describe the powder as containing a solvent) on at least one of a substrate and a powder bed (the roller 125 of the powder delivery system 120 forms a layer of build material over the build platform 131, [0034], Fig. 1; i.e., on the build platform or the powder bed); and
A pattern curing unit (energy source 115, Fig. 1, [0032]) configured to selectively cure the solvent free binder-coated powder to form a printed pattern (configured to direct energy toward build material 130 and form a printed region of the part 140 via a change in state of the polymer component of the powder, [0032]; the polymer component functioning as a binder to form a cohesive structure via the change in state as a result of the energy application, [0027]).
Myerberg discloses the “powder deposition unit” includes the powder delivery system configured as a supply tank and delivery piston and the roller (Fig. 1) and thus does not disclose the system includes a powder deposition unit and a roller as presently claimed.
In the analogous art, Pialot discloses a powder distribution system for a 3D printing machine (Fig. 4, [0050]) including a powder deposition unit, a hopper, configured to deposit powder over a substrate/powder bed as well as a roller positioned adjacent to the hopper and vertically above and facing the substrate/powder bed (Fig. 4, hopper 52 and roller 62), the roller capable of applying at least one of pressure and shear to the deposited powder after it is deposited (flattens a powder layer as shown in Fig. 4 and rotates against the deposited powder, [0050]). Pialot discloses the powder distribution configuration was a known alternative to the supply tank, delivery piston, and roller distribution configuration (Fig. 1, [0043]-[0044]) and that the feeding from above the working zone in a controlled quantity by dosing means integrated with the distributing means provides improved uniformity of the powder bed over the conventional arrangement ([0008]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the powder distribution system including a powder deposition unit (hopper) and a roller as taught by Pialot in place of the powder distribution system including a supply tank, delivery piston, and roller as disclosed by Myerberg as a substitution of one known powder distribution system for another yielding predictable results of providing new powder layers for the powder bed fusion process. MPEP 2143(I)(B). Each type of configuration was known for providing the equivalent function of delivering new powder layers. Furthermore, Pialot discloses the hopper and roller system provides improved uniformity of the deposited powder over the conventional system shown by Myerberg.
Regarding claim 12, modified Myerberg discloses the system of claim 10. The combination does not specifically disclose the system further comprises a compaction unit.
Pialot further discloses the powder distribution system optionally and advantageously including a compaction unit (Fig. 5, compacting roller 9, [0051]) for compacting deposited powder after it is deposited (Fig. 5). Pialot teaches that a compacting roller can make the thickness of a powder layer more homogenous ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Myerberg to include a compaction unit for compacting the deposited powder after deposition and before selective curing in order to provide an even more homogenous layer as taught by Pialot. Note that a timing of when the unit is operated relative to the curing does not structurally limit the apparatus but the arrangement would still result in the powder being compacted before curing.
Regarding claim 15, modified Myerberg discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the solvent free binder-coated powder comprises a binder having a thermally curable composition (note that a composition of the powder does not limit the device but Myerberg also discloses the powder being metal powder coated with a thermally curable polymer/binder, [0026]-[0027]), wherein the pattern curing unit uses a heating device for curing the thermally curable binder composition to form the printed pattern (Myerberg: the energy source applying energy to form the printed regions via the change in state of the polymer/binder, [0032], [0034]; a binder that operates by heat-induced polymerization, [0027], would require the corresponding energy source to be a heat source for effecting the described change in state).
Regarding claim 16, modified Myerberg discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the pattern curing unit includes a laser for selectively curing the solvent free binder-coated powder to form the printed pattern (Myerberg: the energy source comprising a laser, [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Myerberg discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the pattern curing unit is configured to selectively cure the solvent free binder-coated powder to form B-stage state binder (Myerberg: the energy source being a source of visible light, infrared, or ultraviolet curing device, [0030]). Note that a B-stage state binder as presently disclosed is a binder that has been partially cured. As the claim is directed to an apparatus, a particular material worked upon by the apparatus in its intended use is not limiting (MPEP 2115). The claim requires the capability of the apparatus to perform the claimed function. The present specification describes curing by either thermal or UV techniques and does not describe the B-stage binder requiring any additional curing structure. Accordingly, Myerberg’s disclosure of an energy source that operates via heat and/or light, including UV, for energy application to the powder bed ([0032]) meets the structural requirements of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, modified Myerberg discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the solvent free binder-coated powder comprises a binder having a thermally curable composition (note that a composition of the powder does not limit the device but Myerberg also discloses the powder being metal powder coated with a thermally curable polymer/binder, [0026]-[0027]), wherein the pattern curing unit is configured to selectively cure the thermally curable binder composition to form the printed pattern (Myerberg: the energy source applying energy to form the printed regions via the change in state of the polymer/binder, [0032], [0034]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Myerberg discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the pattern curing unit is configured to selectively cure only a first UV curable composition of a binder to form the printed pattern (Myerberg: the energy source being an ultraviolet energy source, [0030]). Note that the remaining claim limitations are directed purely to materials worked on by the apparatus and intended process steps and thus do not structurally limit the claimed apparatus (MPEP 2114-2115).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg et al., US 20200298475 A1, in view of Pialot et al., US 20140363585 A1, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gibson et al., US 20170297109 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 13, modified Myerberg discloses the system of claim 10. Myerberg further discloses the polymer/binder being activated by heat-induced polymerization ([0027]) such that the corresponding energy source for activating the polymer/binder to form the printed pattern ([0032]) would be a heat source. Myerberg discloses the energy source being, e.g., a laser ([0030]). Myerberg is silent as to the pattern curing unit including a patterned heater for the selective curing.
In the analogous art, Gibson discloses a 3D printing system for selective activation of a binder for a sinterable powder (Fig. 11, [0238]). Gibson teaches the system includes a tool 1160 for locally activating the binder according to the two-dimensional cross-section, where the tool includes an infrared heat source and an infrared heating mask ([0240]). An infrared heat source and infrared heating mask is equivalent to a patterned heater. Gibson discloses the infrared patterning mask, infrared heater, and a laser were known alternatives for achieving local activation of a binder to form patterns in a powder bed ([0240]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pattern curing unit of Myerberg to use a patterned heater for selectively curing the solvent free binder-coated powder to form the printed pattern as the energy source as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B). In this case, each type of energy source functioned for selective activation of a binder in a powder bed to form printed regions.
Regarding claim 14, Myerberg discloses the system of claim 10. Myerberg discloses the energy source including an infrared source ([0030]) but is silent as to the pattern curing unit using an infrared patterning mask to form the printed pattern.
In the analogous art, Gibson discloses a 3D printing system for selective activation of a binder for a sinterable powder (Fig. 11, [0238]). Gibson teaches the system includes a tool 1160 for locally activating the binder according to the two-dimensional cross-section, where the tool includes an infrared heat source and an infrared heating mask ([0240]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pattern curing unit of Myerberg to use an infrared patterning mask for forming the printed pattern in order to ensure the capability of a desired local activation of the binder according to the mask when using an infrared source, as taught by Gibson. In this case, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 27 of copending Application No. 17832431 (reference application) in view of Pialot et al., US 20140363585 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claim 10, reference claims 1/27 each disclose a powder bed 3d printing system (3d printing apparatus working on powder deposited onto a build platform; note that “solvent-free” in the preamble does not require any specific structure) comprising a powder deposition unit configured to deposit a solvent free binder-coated powder on at least one of a substrate and a powder bed (powder distributor configured to deposit powder on the upper surface of the build platform; composition of the powder does not limit the apparatus); and a pattern curing unit configured to selectively cure the binder-coated powder to form a printed pattern (curing unit configured to irradiate delivered binder with radiation to cure the delivered binder). The reference claims do not recite a roller as presently claimed; however; a roller is a well-known and conventional structure used in powder-based 3D printing systems for applying pressure or shear to deposited powder, as shown by Pialot as applied above. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further specify a roller as presently claimed for providing a uniform distribution of the deposited powder.
Regarding instant claim 12, the reference claims do not specifically recite a compaction unit for compacting the powder before selective curing. However, structures for compacting a powder layer prior to curing in powder bed 3D printing systems are generally known. Analogous art Pialot, as applied above for claim 12, discloses a compaction unit (compacting roller 9, Fig. 5) that would ordinarily function to compact powder in a powder bed 3D printing system prior to its irradiation to form the object. One skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, compaction by a roller would have been expected to provide a more homogenous layer as taught by Pialot ([0043]).
Regarding instant claim 20, reference claim 2 recites that the curing unit is a UV curing unit configured to irradiate the binder with UV radiation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1/27 of copending Application No. 17832431 in view of Pialot et al., US 20140363585 A1 as applied above, and Myerberg et al., US 20200298475 A1.
Regarding instant claim 15, the reference claims do not specifically recite the pattern curing unit uses a heating device for curing thermally curable binder composition to form the printed pattern. The claim requires the structure of a heating device capable of curing a thermally curable binder. Analogous art Myerberg, as applied for claim 15 above discloses the equivalent structure (energy source 115 applying energy to form the printed regions via the change in state of the polymer/binder, [0032], [0034]; a binder that operates by heat-induced polymerization, [0027], requiring a corresponding heat source for effecting the described change in state). As thermally curable binders were known for use in powder bed 3D printing systems (Myerberg [0027]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the curing unit uses a heating device for curing thermally curable binder composition to form the printed pattern in order to ensure that the system could work on these types of printing materials.
Regarding instant claim 16, the reference claims do not specifically recite the pattern curing unit includes a laser. Analogous art Myerberg, as applied for claim 16 above further discloses the curing unit including a laser ([0030], [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the curing unit includes a laser so as to specify an energy source capable of successfully achieving adherence of the powder as taught by Myerberg.
Regarding instant claim 17, the reference claims do not specifically recite the pattern curing unit is configured to selectively cure the binder-coated powder to form B-stage binder. As set forth above, the claim requires the capability of partially curing the binder, which is interpreted in view of the specification as achieved by UV or thermal energy application. Analogous art Myerberg, as applied for claim 17 above further discloses the curing unit including a UV or thermal energy application device ([0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the curing unit is configured to selectively cure the binder-coated powder to form B-stage binder so as to specify an energy source capable of successfully achieving adherence of the powder as taught by Myerberg.
Regarding instant claim 18, the reference claims do not specifically recite the pattern curing unit being configured to selectively cure thermally curable binder composition to form the printed pattern. The claim requires essentially the structure of a curing device capable of curing a thermally curable binder, i.e., a heat source. Analogous art Myerberg, as applied for claims 15/18 above discloses the equivalent structure (energy source 115 applying energy to form the printed regions via the change in state of the polymer/binder, [0032], [0034]; a binder that operates by heat-induced polymerization, [0027], requiring a corresponding heat source for effecting the described change in state). As thermally curable binders were known for use in powder bed 3D printing systems (Myerberg [0027]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the curing unit being configured to selectively cure thermally curable binder composition to form the printed pattern in order to ensure that the system could work on these types of printing materials.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1/27 of copending Application No. 17832431 in view of Pialot et al., US 20140363585 A1 as applied above, and Gibson et al., US 20170297109 A1.
Regarding instant claims 13-14, the reference claims do not recite the pattern curing unit includes a patterned heater or an infrared patterning mask. As set forth above for claims 13-14, analogous art Gibson discloses a tool 1160 for locally activating the binder according to the two-dimensional cross-section, where the tool includes an infrared heat source and an infrared heating mask ([0240]). An infrared heat source and an infrared heating mask is equivalent to a patterned heater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pattern curing unit of reference claims 1/27 to include a patterned heater or an infrared patterning mask for forming the printed pattern as suitable curing structures for activating binders in a powder bed 3D printing system. One skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 15, and 17-18 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-15 and 20 of copending Application No. 18391024 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claim 10, reference claims 14-15 disclose a system (system for manufacturing dry powder electrodes; note that “solvent-free” in the preamble does not require any specific structure, note also that “3D printing” in the preamble is not limiting when the structural limitations of the apparatus is fully defined in the body of the claim, MPEP 2111.02) comprising a powder deposition unit configured to deposit a binder-coated powder on at least one of a substrate and a powder bed (powder deposition station configured to deposit dry powder onto a moving current collector web using a dry powder dispensing device, the powder being a mixture of active material particles and one or more binder materials); a roller capable of applying at least one of pressure and shear to the deposited powder prior to pattern curing (one or more conditioning rollers configured to decrease a thickness of the deposited powder material prior to compaction); and a pattern curing unit configured to selectively cure the binder-coated powder to form a printed pattern (one or more calendars configured to apply at least one of pressure or heat…to activate the one or more binder materials; claim 15: the one or more binder materials are a surface adherent of the active material particles after the application of heat). The reference claims do not specifically recite that the roller is positioned adjacent to the powder deposition unit and vertically above and facing the substrate or powder bed; however, this would have been the obvious configuration in order to predictably work on the powder deposited by the powder deposition unit (adjacent position) and to decrease its thickness as recited (relatively above/facing position).
Regarding instant claim 12, reference claims 14 and 20 (claim 20 is interpreted as intending to depend from system claim 14) further disclose a compaction unit for compacting the binder-coated powder before selective curing (one or more conditioning rollers, i.e., another of the “rollers,” configured to decrease a thickness of the deposited material, i.e., compact, prior to further pressure/heat application and compaction).
Regarding instant claims 15/18, reference claim 14 further discloses the pattern curing unit includes a heating device capable of curing a thermally curable binder (one or more calendars that apply heat for activating the binder).
Regarding instant claim 17, as set forth above, the claim requires the capability of partially curing the binder, which is interpreted in view of the present specification as achieved by UV or thermal energy application. Since the curing device of reference claims 14-15 operates by application of heat to activate a binder, it was capable of forming a B-stage state binder.
The remaining claims are considered patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application and thus are not rejected under double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 10-12, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to claim amendments and the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are generally persuasive. Myerberg does not disclose each feature of amended claim 10. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pialot. As set forth above, Pialot discloses a known alternative powder deposition unit and roller configuration. Pialot further teaches a compaction unit as claimed.
Applicant's arguments, pp. 14-22, with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments (pp. 16-17) regarding Gibson’s failure to disclose a powder deposition unit and roller are moot as Gibson was not relied upon for these features. Applicant further argues (pp. 18-22) that Gibson and Myerberg disclose different types of binder materials and systems specific to processing the binder and powder compositions. Applicant argues that Gibson uses a liquid binder application while Myerberg uses a dry type binder without binder jetting and thus the combination would require modifying Myerberg’s additive technology to use Gibson’s technology including an infrared heating source and mask for activating a liquid binder.
In response to applicant's argument that using Gibson’s patterned heater / infrared heating source and mask as the heater in Myerberg would require fundamentally changing the process of Myerberg to use a liquid binder, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In either prior art reference, a binder is incorporated in a powder layer with the build material powder and is activated by heat to form the printed pattern. Myerberg discloses a heating unit for activating the binder that is a laser ([0027], [0030], [0032]). Gibson discloses a patterned heating unit that is an alternative to a laser and also functions to heat the applied material and thus activate a binder ([0238], [0240]). Gibson discloses an activatable binder can be a part of the supplied powdered material ([0238]). In each case the curing/heating unit is structurally a heater that applies heat to a deposited layer that is ultimately intended to cure a binder present in the layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights